Re: Wedding photography

"the_niner_nation" <the_niner_nation@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:46915ca6$0$16404$88260bb3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Caesar" <caesar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.20fb46b0e7a3d3a9989682@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Hi,
>>
>> I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
>> years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
>> photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself
since
>> I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
>>
>> I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
>> option and would be only a back-up.
>>
>> I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might
think
>> why go "backwards" and not digital.
>> Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
>> (price, time consumption and quality).
>>
>> I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
>> use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
>> Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
>> Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available
here)
>> it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
>> shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
>> light and sand).
>> Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
>> be sufficient?
>> No s****ts photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
>> (minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
>>
>> Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
>>
>> Thank you for your input.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Caesar
>
> Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than 
> digital...
If I were a professional wedding or ****trait photographer, I would
probably 
have and use a medium/large format film camera. - But it is hard for me to

believe that digital cameras aren't fast replacing 35 mm cameras for a
good 
reason...